Um... we don't write for a target demographic.
Begging your pardon of course, but the OP shows some pretty definitive evidence to the contrary.
If by "target demographic" you mean "gamers who are interested in playing and seeing all kinds of people in their choice of roleplaying game" then yes, we are writing to that demographic. :D
..and who may be slightly more interested in reading about sexy bisexual female demons than sexy bisexual male demons. At least according to the statistics presented at the beginning of the thread.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I wouldn't go to Hooters if half the wait staff was dudes in jock straps. For the record, I have brought my wife to strip bars, and if she wanted me to come with her to a similar bar with male dancers I'd do it. I probably wouldn't order the hot wings though.
This whole thing reminds me a lot of the big feminist outcry about how Marvel Comics shows women's butts and oversexualizes women's bodies in their comics. Which .. well .. yeah, but have you paid attention to what they do to men? It ain't like they're being particularly realistic with the male forms of their super heros either. I just wish everyone would lighten up and treat sex in fantasy media as fun and interesting instead of some kind of morality statement. Next month someone will post the LG dress code.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Gamers who are attracted to men want sex in fantasy media to be as fun and interesting for us as it is for gamers who are attracted to women.
Instead of having The Fantasy RPG for People Who Like Guys and The Fantasy RPG for People Who Like Chicks, I'd rather have all of us be able to sit down at the same table, play the same AP, and all get what we enjoy out of it.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just like to note that while this and some other threads has led me to believe Paizo products still has some room to grow in the egalitarian department, I consider them to be in a completely different league from what I typically see in the superhero genre.
I cannot put enough emphasis on that.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd just like to note that while this and some other threads has led me to believe Paizo products still has some room to grow in the egalitarian department, I consider them to be in a completely different league from what I typically see in the superhero genre.
I cannot put enough emphasis on that.
This is very true. Paizo's pretty awesomely inclusive and egalitarian by today's standards. This doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, but it's worth bringing up every so often in threads like this.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo are such nice guys that they made their whole system open source. That means anyone can write an adventure path for it, not just Paizo.Good point.
Time for me to go write some heavy yaoi adventures!
Going to point out this relevant section of the Pathfinder Compatibility License.
You must use your best efforts to preserve the high standard of our trademarks. You may not use this License for products that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors.
In any case... Rest assured that if I ever DO undertake making a PF-compatible content, any 'yaoi' will simply take the form of options for homosexual male PCs to influence the events with their interactions with the gay NPCs.
I have a fetish for meaningful, loving relationships.
Thinking back on this and something just hit me:
You know what would be perfectly fine under the compatibility license? Something along the lines of Blue Rose! The romantic fantasy genre is something I'd love to see emulated a bit more alongside pulp and sword-and-sorcery.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am now tempted to rerun Burnt Offerings with...
At some point the party should probably run into him. Maybe in the halls of lust? He might be there taking a bit of a vacation.
...That is some messed up thoughts I'm having. LOL.
|
|
I'm sorry, I actually forgot to ask about the instances he was thinking of in those other APs. Shisumo (or others), I think I can guess some of the ones that are going to be mentioned, but if you want to point out what stands out to you guys, I'd appreciate it a lot (although the AP I'm least familiar with is Legacy of Fire so it might take me some time to read that one).
I noticed Shisumo mentioned he can think of examples from Second Darkness, Curse of the Crimson Throne and possibly Legacy of Fire. I haven't read any of those APs so I'm not really in a position to comment, but could it be we're experiencing some polling bias?
I suppose I ought to put my money where my mouth is. How much you agree with this will probably depend on your definition of "sexual domination," but here's what I was thinking of:
It's not a teenage phase, I think, so much as that when you're creating a world, that "show, don't tell" principle is important, and if you say orcs are mostly evil, then start out with a bunch of non-evil orcs out of the gate, that sort of undermines the idea that orcs are usually evil. The idea that a particular orc is exceptional for being non-evil has more weight if the orc characters you've shown up to that point have been predominantly evil.That's something that wouldn't be out of the ordinary in my campaigns, though given the way Paizo operates I would be surprised to find an orc that was non-evil. But then we've got a non-evil demon in an AP so maybe Paizo is getting past their teenage phases. :)I'm either unlucky or lucky enough to never have run for a group that has wanted "romance". If it ever happened perhaps it would be an issue. But the beauty of any female NPC is mostly window dressing wasted on my group of orc-killers.>_>
<_<
I understand the "show, don't tell" thing, but from my chats with JJ and Sean, it generally came off as a "no X is evil, always" thing, which is cute and all but for most of the people I know, we grew out of that in favor of more mature themes. For us, it was more about not what, but why.
For example, in my campaigns there are entire tribes of orcs that are super evil. Why? Because they worship fiends. Their tribes encourage everything that is evil (hurting, oppressing, and killing) and encourages crushing the weak under their heel, and those who would rise against this are swept up in the tide of their society or become estranged from it. There's a number of not wholly evil orc tribes as well, including some that are more into nature gods, or tribal ancestors, though most have some sort of warrior culture, and at least one tribe of them that could probably be considered good overall (mostly a tribe that sees themselves as guardians against corruption of the world).
I'm exceedingly pleased that with APs like Wrath of the Righteous Paizo is breaking out of this mold and exploring sentient choice despite what is considered the status quo. And it's often trivially easy to show that you can have the norm, but with exceptions, or varying degrees. It makes characters more meaningful (and perhaps more memorable) because it enforces the idea of choice and as a direct result makes something all the more impactful.
I've often said "I've a campaign with evil vampires, but they're not evil because they're vampires, but they're evil because they're evil". Which means that when the party charges headlong into battle with the bad guys, they know it isn't because this creature they're about to kill has no choice, or was born that way, or was just living its nature, but because it knew what it was doing was wrong and didn't care.
It, to me, is one of the strangest things, that the makers of this game include "rape-y" monsters and "rape-y" references, and then, here in these boards have to deal with the daily nightmare of dealing with people that want to talk about "rape-y" things and find out that it is not a pleasant subject in any way.
Now, please, don't get me wrong. The game, as a fantasy role playing experience filled with dragons, goblins, and monsters of all kinds, the "rape-y" thing is just going to come up every now and then, but honestly, man, is it hard to talk about.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not encouraging or condoning "rape-y" things, but we talk about murder on a daily basis, and I'm pretty sure that murder is probably a step above sexual assault on the list of things that are generally pretty terrible to do to people (as someone who was molested as a child and grew up fairly normal, I think I'd be better off being strait up sexually assaulted, even fairly violently, than murdered), though perhaps some people wouldn't agree.
Because of this, why is it seen as "acceptable" to literally play wandering murder hobos and advance in levels by killing lots and lots of stuff, often stuff that's sentient, or have bad guys killing people left and right, but the idea of sexual assault is treated this way?
Maybe because there's fewer people around that were murdered to get upset about it?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't get me wrong. I'm not encouraging or condoning "rape-y" things, but we talk about murder on a daily basis, and I'm pretty sure that murder is probably a step above sexual assault on the list of things that are generally pretty terrible to do to people (as someone who was molested as a child and grew up fairly normal, I think I'd be better off being strait up sexually assaulted, even fairly violently, than murdered), though perhaps some people wouldn't agree.
Because of this, why is it seen as "acceptable" to literally play wandering murder hobos and advance in levels by killing lots and lots of stuff, often stuff that's sentient, or have bad guys killing people left and right, but the idea of sexual assault is treated this way?
Maybe because there's fewer people around that were murdered to get upset about it?
If you really want an answer to this it's actually pretty simple: You can justify killing. Rape, on the other hand, is basically impossible to justify.
If people attack you, or are going around killing babies, or whatever, most moral systems argue that killing them to get them to stop is acceptable...and that right there is most adventures in a nutshell. You're not murdering helpless non-combatants and children, you're fighting people armed with weapons who were doing bad things before you got here and are now trying to kill you. Anyone who thinks being a soldier isn't immoral can probably justify that to some degree.
Rape, on the other hand...yeah, that doesn't really have a similar circumstance where it's necessary or effective to prevent greater or more terrible things from happening. Or is ever okay in the slightest.
Is killing someone innocent in cold blood worse than sexual assault? Yeah, probably by most people's definitions. But shooting the serial killer holding a knife over a sleeping child is a lot more okay.
Now, some games definitely descend into the whole 'murder hobo' thing...but, actually, they usually get called out on it if they're overt about that attitude. I recall a post maybe a couple of years ago about a guy playing an Evil character and killing prostitutes...responses were pretty similar to those there are to rape references, because it's similarly inexcusable. Killing the dragon that's been ravaging the countryside just isn't in the same category, though.
Look at the world we live in. The definition of rape is very broad, and I assure you that many people don't see the difference between using magical abilities to tempt and seduce you and make you do somethign you wouldn't otherwise do and slipping drugs into your cocktail.That's not what succubi do. Look at the Bestiary: a succubus's special abilities are energy drain and the ability to bestow a profane gift.
Jessica, this is from the Succubi's stat block.
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 12th)
Constant—detect good, tongues
At will—charm monster (DC 22), detect thoughts (DC 20), ethereal jaunt (self plus 50 lbs. of objects only), suggestion (DC 21), greater teleport (self plus 50 lbs. of objects only), vampiric touch
1/day—dominate person (DC 23), summon (level 3, 1 babau 50%)
This is generally how it actually goes down during a game. Charm monster or suggestion and then it's all downhill from there. But why not? It's a SLA. The succubus doesn't need to speak, or move, or do anything that would suggest that she's casting a spell because it has no components. "Hmmm, kiss me, I'm Irish!" the succubus says as she uses suggestion and bam, it's all over then.
A classic succubus doesn't slip you a magical mickey or take away your free will to get you to sleep with her; she seduces you -- that is, she convinces you to consent to sleep with her -- and then drains your energy.
The thing is, this doesn't really work that well in most cases, unless she's just trying to challenge herself somehow. The DC to resist being charmed by the succubus is actually higher than the DC to keep kissing her once she's got you. About the only reason she has to avoid using her mind-control powers would be to avoid the odd superhuman noticing that you're under the influence of a charm (DC 25 Sense Motive), but suggestion "Come up to my room later for some fun," can solve that issue too.
Could she do it without magic? Eh, well, yes, no, and maybe. See, she could definitely get NPCs that way, but the thing is nothing about the succubus would help her seduce PCs otherwise. Her rocking Bluff and Diplomacy skills are pretty much nil vs PCs. Bluff could convince them that she's really interested in them, or that she wasn't dangerous, but beyond that? Not much unless they're pretty much willing to play along with it.
Which is actually a bad thing if that's the plan. Seriously, in general you want to reward PCs for interacting with NPCs and building relationships, or allowing their PCs to be seduced by someone as it's a very humanizing character development. As a result, using such a thing as the primary weapon of a monster would be terrible as you condition the player into becoming more defensive in future sessions for ages to come.
And a male version of that -- a male demon who gets you into bed by being handsome and charming and charismatic and, y'know seductive -- isn't a rape demon.
So I go back to my original point, which was that the conflation of seduction and assault if the target is female erases the idea of female consent in a way that is really disturbing.
Satyrs do the same thing, honestly. Again, charm is a standard tool of both succubi and satyrs, and it's quite clear that they wander about charming people and leaving confused shepherd boys in their wakes. With magical charms. :o
Kudaku -- wasn't addressed at your post in particular, just as the general sentiment I've seen pop up a few times that the male equivalent of a succubus can't be used because it would be seen as sexual assault.Enchantments in general walk a fine line since they border on evil by default, according to the description of evil in D&D/Pathfinder where oppression is a form of evil. Enchantments in general are rife with potential "misuse", and succubi are exceptionally good at misusing them.
EDIT: That said, I do have Incubi in my games and did long, long before Paizo decided to publish the brutish Incubi demon statistics. They're just the male-themed version of the succubus as the two demons are iconically variants of one-another.
I've noticed that my games are probably horrible.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because of this, why is it seen as "acceptable" to literally play wandering murder hobos and advance in levels by killing lots and lots of stuff, often stuff that's sentient, or have bad guys killing people left and right, but the idea of sexual assault is treated this way?
Maybe because there's fewer people around that were murdered to get upset about it?
Yes, in part.
Murder's kind of a binary. Sexual assault isn't. Either you get murdered, and you're not around to be traumatized, or you don't get murdered, and you're not traumatized. That's not to say that no one ever tries to murder someone and fails, and that that isn't traumatic, but attempted murder survivors are a heck of a lot less common than sexual assault survivors. Murder doesn't leave you with the core of who you are violated, because you're not around to feel violated by it.
Also, there's a lot less cultural baggage (victim blaming, denial of what happened, etc.) around being the victim of an attempted murder.
And most people don't spend their lives with a list of stuff they've been told not to do lest they get murdered, whereas I and almost every woman I know has a laundry list of stuff I've been told to do, or not to do, when I park my car at night, or when I'm walking alone at night (which I shouldn't be doing!) and there's a man walking behind me, when I walk through a parking lot or other secluded area, when I go out for dinner with a man I don't know well, when I get into a car with a man I don't know well, when I have a party at my apartment and the last person to leave is a male acquaintance, etcetera for ever.
So yeah, I don't think they're really analogous. And there's also, as other people mentioned, the "justification" thing. Generally, unless you're playing an evil character, in an RPG you're killing people that are trying to kill you. There is no justification for rape. If anything, having sexual assault in your game is probably more analogous to having non-interrogation torture in it. (Not saying I'm okay with even interrogation torture, but different people may have different opinions on it, whereas I think we can all get together on torture that's not being used as a form of interrogation being unjustifiable.)
If you really want an answer to this it's actually pretty simple: You can justify killing. Rape, on the other hand, is basically impossible to justify.
If people attack you, or are going around killing babies, or whatever, most moral systems argue that killing them to get them to stop is acceptable...and that right there is most adventures in a nutshell. You're not murdering helpless non-combatants and children, you're fighting people armed with weapons who were doing bad things before you got here and are now trying to kill you. Anyone who thinks being a soldier isn't immoral can probably justify that to some degree.
Rape, on the other hand...yeah, that doesn't really have a similar circumstance where it's necessary or effective to prevent greater or more terrible things from happening. Or is ever okay in the slightest.
Is killing someone innocent in cold blood worse than sexual assault? Yeah, probably by most people's definitions. But shooting the serial killer holding a knife over a sleeping child is a lot more okay.
Now, some games definitely descend into the whole 'murder hobo' thing...but, actually, they usually get called out on it if they're...
Well I'd be pretty appalled by my PCs if they were killing people a ton as well, in a non-self defense / non-altruistic sort of way. But the poster I was responding to was talking about the mere inclusion of such things, even by evil NPCs.
Whereas, my question is, if murdering someone and taking their life is worse (I think it is, you might not agree), then why is it A-OK to have villains murdering people in a game, whereas the monsters who sexually assault characters (Satyrs, Succubi, Thriae, etc) are less acceptable.
My question, again still legitimate, extends across both PCs and NPCs. I'm legitimately curious as, to me this seems like a strange double standard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't the term 'hyper-sexualized" a bit of, to put it pun-ly, hyper-bole?
Sure they're somewhat sexualized (perhaps a bit too much) but I'd hardly quantify it as hypersexualized.
No. It's hypersexualized.
Have you ever seen a male character posed in an anatomically improbable manner just so that his sexyparts were all showing at the same time? It's unfortunately the default norm for female depictions in fantasy art and comics, and boy is it ever dumb. And annoying, if you don't happen to be of the orientation to be even remotely interested in the parts they are showing.
What do you call it when fanservice gets in the way of realistic depictions and storylines? Other than seriously annoying to everyone who isn't actually being served.
As a dreaded straight white male, I have to say that the "fan service" isn't serving me either. Overly sexualized art or images have been around my entire like -- I'm 46 now -- and they are back ground noise. Whether comics or RPGs or selling beer or chips or whatever, it has so ubiquitous in every form of media that my eyes just slide over it.
That said, this sort of art doesn't get in the way of the storylines for me, any more than having some beefcake poses are going to. I like art, don't get me wrong -- I think many of the pieces of art are beautiful and would love to have them as prints if I were rich -- but they are not what I am buying the books for primarily, and they do not decide, for me, if I'll continue purchasing.
As an aside, a vast number of my players past and present are female. They buy RPGs, they buy fantasy/sci fi books, comics, and even romance novels with this fan service art. The majority of them are .. well, not OK with it, but tolerant at least. According to one, that's the price of admission to get the product. They are not particularly any more interested in having male images of the same vein strewn all over the material either and would have just the same embarrassment issues with it as having half-naked girls on it. Take that as you will.
My question, again still legitimate, extends across both PCs and NPCs. I'm legitimately curious as, to me this seems like a strange double standard.
People are strange.
I think its that killing is a gray area. There are all sorts of justifications for murdering someone and taking their life that range from good (he was trying to fireball the orphanage) to questionable (we're responding to the raid on us by raiding them back) to outright evil (He was trying to charge 2 copper for a turnip! Flaming hand of fiery doom!) The act itself isn't whats questionable, the motivation behind it is. Not only does this allow for a lot of good killing, it lets the gray areas. Examining the death of the orc you just killed would require looking at a larger picture than most campaigns get into, so it can be assumed there IS a good reason for it. (see a good chunk of the order of the stick for what happens when you try to do that though)
There's no justification for sexual assault though. The act itself is evil.
This is one place I could find the old TSR guidelines for writing for them.
And this is their code of ethics.
Taken together, this was a policy that in its time was infamous, and set the tone of all the stuff written for AD&D. My theory is that all in all, as the above was emphasized, the result for 2nd edition AD&D (especially the Forgotten Realms) was incompetent, unsuccessful villains and instead a focus on Good NPCs, which became the reason for the "super NPC saves the day" syndrome that 2nd edition Realms is known for. When third edition Realms rolled along, these policies were updated, which was discussed in the magazines along the lines of "now that the policy has been changed, we can finally write interesting villains again!".
The relation to this thread is simply: The OP suggests a more restrictive policy. Every such policy has costs. I have full confidence in Paizo's ability to widen the depictions of sexuality/situations touching on sexuality/relationships and the like to encompass male and female characters. Jessica seems to think a good seductive male monster or villain can be done without harming Paizo, and you know what? If anyone can, Paizo can.
Just don't sign up on new, less mature, policies to avoid offending someone. PG-13 is neat at times, but for me and many others, 13 was a pretty good while ago.
One version of the Sleeping Beauty tale had the required kiss be... uhmmm... more than a kiss. Where would that end up on the sexual assault scale?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well I'd be pretty appalled by my PCs if they were killing people a ton as well, in a non-self defense / non-altruistic sort of way. But the poster I was responding to was talking about the mere inclusion of such things, even by evil NPCs.
Whereas, my question is, if murdering someone and taking their life is worse (I think it is, you might not agree), then why is it A-OK to have villains murdering people in a game, whereas the monsters who sexually assault characters (Satyrs, Succubi, Thriae, etc) are less acceptable.
My question, again still legitimate, extends across both PCs and NPCs. I'm legitimately curious as, to me this seems like a strange double standard.
Ah. That's a slightly different objection than I thought you were making.
In answer, some of it is that it's not generally okay to have monsters or NPCs sexually assault PCs because that can get unpleasant in a way that them killing said PCs in a fight almost never is. Most people would also not consider graphically torturing PCs and/or having villains whisper lovingly into their ear as the knife slides in (all described in detail) to be appropriate.
All are more personal, almost intimate, than death in battle tends to be, and can be ways to emotionally harass or attack the player as well as the character. And even if not used for that, can make people feel seriously uncomfortable or be otherwise highly unpleasant for them in a way less personalized violence isn't. Heck, even having such things happen to NPCs can be pretty unpleasant to sensitive people, and thus might be inappropriate with some groups.
Now, I'd like to note that I'm explaining this, not necessarily reflecting my own gaming preferences. I've explored some ugly stuff while gaming, and never had a problem where someone seemed uncomfortable with the villains having, say, been a serial killer with all the sick and twisted shit that implies. Heck, I once ran a (very short lived) game where the PCs were serial killers...and not the friendly kind ala Dexter. But a lot of people wouldn't be comfortable with that game, and they shouldn't remotely have to be in order to enjoy a typical game of Pathfinder.
In short, I feel like limiting things that bring home the horror or brutality of certain situations and acts is a very reasonable play style, if perhaps not typically my own, and such things should definitely be handled carefully until you know your gaming group very well indeed (I'd known all my players for years before running that serial killer game, and sounded them out first anyway).
This thread is still truckin huh?
Paizo as far as I can see is doing it just to make a buck.
Wow.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What i´m not getting is why males have to look more or less like females in some depictions and be wearing make up. And i don´t mean that comics supposed to show how ridiculous female comic poses often are.
I want to add to that, since the first time i saw that comic, i did the same as many artists. I watched people in my surroundings and on the street, how they pose. There is a difference in women and men, perhaps it is socialized, with some it´s not that big, but it certainly adds to receive the gender of that person, independant from their biological gender. And then of course comics generaly exaggerate, that´s their nature, isn´t it. So this comic agenda seems like a Don Quixotery to me.
The Hawkeye Initiative is more to show not just the ridiculousness of the poses, but the costumes as well. Planning to fight an armed person while wearing just a bikini and heels is silly, no matter who you are. Doing it while crouching so your butt - which is only clad in a bikini, so it's pretty breezy, mind you - is aimed directly at the camera is something that turns women off to comics because it's as exaggerated as if a woman were to write "The hot hunk sweatily tensed his twelve-pack and unbuttoned his shirt almost to the waist to show off his entire chest before he hauled himself over the wall, his butt arched and straining mightily through his hot-pants jeans. His completely mundane and reasonably clothed lady-friend walked around the wall in a normal manner though."
If you were to see something like that, would you think that it has anything for dudes, or assume that it's just basically for girls? That's what the Initiative is trying to show.
So many complaints about lesbians being a male fantasy.
But what about lesbians as a lesbian fantasy? Don't we get to have any fun? :(
Sorry, I tried to be careful not to have it come across that way. Again, individually, all these are fine. It's the continued thread that bothers me, not that Runelord Sorshen might have been a die-hard, lipstick lesbian. Anything's fine, just openly present it that way, don't do this other stuff.
Except where I just plain don't think that it's a lesbian fantasy at all to read, in relative detail, about how all-female races interact with dudes... but say nothing about how they interact with ladies.
I was responding to Pres Man saying nobody was asking Paizo to stop what they were doing. I quoted your thread starting post where you specifically asked them to stop what they were doing and bolded those parts where you asked them to stop doing what they are doing.
That is separate from whether you are asking for a good reason or whether it would impact sales.
That's why I didn't bold your reasoning for asking for them to stop doing what they are doing and only bolded the parts where you asked them to stop doing stuff.
I did take your words literally. I thought you were honestly and in good faith saying you found a trend you did not like in the portrayal of men vs women and were suggesting they make a change to address it. I did not think it was sarcasm or hyperbole or a false request to make a point but an honest request for change.
Then I apologize for bristling there dude, I get on edge when I come back and see and have to keep track of so many posts that can feel attack-y. It gets to a point where I can't tell who's arguing for/against/doesn't believe what I'm saying might be true. So again, sorry for being so defensive there.
So in this ONE case, I don't think Paizo's portrayal is largely incorrect. Incubi were not romance novel cover models, who would seduce women. Having them be muscle, or grunts, while not perfect, is much closer to the mythology.
Don't get me wrong, I love the point about incubi and dreams being one of their core associations. I wish it was a greater part of their character. But, I'd say your comment about the dreams - or secretly leaving ruination in their wake - is pretty radically different from "well they hold swords and are good at sword stuff and don't do other stuff."
@ Mythological Creature issue:
Paizo also chose to switch up the male drider. They're capable of changing creatures when they want to, regardless of "established" lore.
I also can't help but think it's really goofy that there's this hang-up about the incubi and how they appeared in original myth, when nymphs, satyrs, centaur, lampades and the already-pointed-out-medusae have a longer history of being not-true to myth and yet there was no change to them during the move away from 3.5.
I also think it's goofy because Greek mythology has some of the gayest gods and stories out there, and if there's ever somehow a new all-male monster race based on Zephyr, or Apollo, or Achilles/Patrocles and all they want to do is canoodle with dudes and flirt with strong women, well... "it's mythology."
Quibble about specific APs. Nitpick in an attempt to exclude/disprove/minimise the examples given. These are examples of derailing. A diversion from the main topic in an attempt to avoid actually dealing with it. Likely unintentional, but unproductive to the conversation nonetheless.
I definitely contributed to this, sorry. I keep straddling a line between providing examples and trying to get into new territory and messing it up :(
This subconscious resistance is to be expected. To raise awareness of an inequality generates defensiveness on behalf of the benefited parties. They feel accused, persecuted. There's no need. Nobody wants to point fingers or make anybody feel guilty. People just want a more egalitarian representation of romance and sex appeal in Paizo's RPGs. There's no need to interpret it as an attack or witch hunt.
aww. Thanks for putting it that way. I really like how you said that there.
It isn'a "hyper-specific example" if it is a very large part of the OP's point. Read the first post again. It is surprisingly focused on succubi.Which was not what I was doing. I made a point that discussing this, mainly based on succubi, is useless, because succubi are creatures of prejudice.Again, focusing on a hyper-specific example to the detriment of the general subject being discussed. In what way is it important whether the use of succubi in PF is productive/accurate or not, when it's merely part of a larger issue? Trying to discredit or minimise a specific example instead of arguing the actual topic at hand is a classic form of derailing.
Well I did say twice now that I don't want the focus of the conversation to be about lust-demons and/or male seducers strictly when all-male, appealing-to-female/non-straight players races also need to be created. I also don't want the context of that to be dismissed; some ridiculous imbalance was going on, without justification for it.
Um... we don't write for a target demographic.Begging your pardon of course, but the OP shows some pretty definitive evidence to the contrary.
If by "target demographic" you mean "gamers who are interested in playing and seeing all kinds of people in their choice of roleplaying game" then yes, we are writing to that demographic. :D..and who may be slightly more interested in reading about sexy bisexual female demons than sexy bisexual male demons. At least according to the statistics presented at the beginning of the thread.
Considering how surprised and unaware people were of that trend, and unintentional it seemed, I don't think that switching it up just the tiniest bit and occasionally having a dude/dude race that chicks/non-hetero people find attractive, in the mix of everything you get now, will be noticed either.
Gamers who are attracted to men want sex in fantasy media to be as fun and interesting for us as it is for gamers who are attracted to women.
Instead of having The Fantasy RPG for People Who Like Guys and The Fantasy RPG for People Who Like Chicks, I'd rather have all of us be able to sit down at the same table, play the same AP, and all get what we enjoy out of it.
You got a good point, Joana. It IS a fantasy game, one that people want to play with a community. Definitely seems like there could be room for other peoples' fantasies in there too.
I am now tempted to rerun Burnt Offerings with...
** spoiler omitted **
...That is some messed up thoughts I'm having. LOL.
Huh.
This is very true. Paizo's pretty awesomely inclusive and egalitarian by today's standards. This doesn't mean there isn't room for improvement, but it's worth bringing up every so often in threads like this.I'd just like to note that while this and some other threads has led me to believe Paizo products still has some room to grow in the egalitarian department, I consider them to be in a completely different league from what I typically see in the superhero genre.
I cannot put enough emphasis on that.
Thank you both for stopping to say this! I really don't want to be a downer, or harp on things. I love Paizo and their head and shoulders are so far above the rest of the crowd that they're walking on air. The commitment they make to their ideals is so rare and important to me that I'm absolutely a fan for life, regardless of whatever happens.
PS: the OP talked about bisexual women NPCs being used, anyone ever seen an openly male homosexual or bisexual NPC? Im not sure i ever have.
there's a literal boat-load, probably at least one non-straight person per book. some, like the Reign of Winter AP, are extremely chicks-into-chicks heavy, but I'd say at least once in every Full AP there's a explicitly gay male NPC, and I'm pretty sure the Chelish Pathfinder Society lady is bisexual by this point (but I don't play Society so I don't know the exact deets). I was actually thinking of making up a list of these things earlier today, in relation to DeadManWalking's post, which I just realized I completely forgot about.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In some ways I would compare this issue with the same thing that has happened to DC Comics Wonder Woman over the years.
Um...DC comics has a pretty abysmal record when it comes to their treatment of female characters (which would be one reason I don't even read DC any more), but if Wonder Woman is your example of something that started out so good and pure and they ruined by sexualizing her (and especially by her being enslaved)....you've chosen very poorly.
Paizo as far as I can see is doing it just to make a buck.
Yeah...not so much.
PS: the OP talked about bisexual women NPCs being used, anyone ever seen an openly male homosexual or bisexual NPC? Im not sure i ever have.
*cracks up laughing* Wrath of the Righteous (the AP the op complains about most) has a gay male couple. The first AP volume ever written has a gay Paladin, also male. The list goes on. And on. Paizo is not lacking in gay relationships of either gender, and single people are mostly whatever sexuality is convenient for the GM...they're lacking a little in single guys, but that's another issue entirely.
|
|
@Deadman: hold on a sec, My PS was my ignorance on the material not a commentary. it was a question and i thank you for answering.
You're welcome. And, for the record, I didn't mean to come off as snippy or anything, I just literally burst out laughing...it's one of those "Wait, did you just ask if there were a lot of guns in Montana?" moments that sparks amusement.
And it was not the sexualizing of Wonder Woman that ruined her but it is rather the most obvious and visible symptom of a larger condition. She isn't even the same character anymore honestly as even her origin story has changed i think twice in about 5 years (i didn't see Batman or Supermans story change so drastically).
Oh, this I agree with...but that's not really how you presented your argument previously, or at all on topic for this thread.
@all: But concerning Paizo it is a business and it wants to make money. as far as i can tell they do it FAR classier than their competition but they are going to make decisions to cater to demographics of choice.
Their demographic of choice appears to be 'all the gamers' (or as many as they can arrange)...so targeting smaller groups within that would be rather counterproductive.
My personal preference is to not use modules but home brew stories so it doesn't matter a lot to me and my little clique but ive had my two cents. Best of luck to Paizo and their fans.
I use some of each. But, for the record, even if doing your own stories a lot of these issues are still relevant, both in Golarion as a world (if you use it) and the art of the books you use (regardless of the world you use them for).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of this discussion is hogwash. "Hypersexualized" is a term that should be used to actual hypersexualized content. Attractive presentation is not hypersexualized presentation, no matter how much you want to point out all the girl images cleavage and model-like proportions. Hyperbole does not make the argument more sound (and xeose4 makes appropriate commentary and apology to that effect earlier in the thread).
There's 2 important distinctions in perceptions here that should be highlighted:
- Fan service for males: the impression the discussion here gives is that every single female image is serving the (straight) male libido. The root of this premise is that the female images have breasts (a primary female sexual characteristic and thus unavoidable) and show skin. The fallacy here is that those 2 qualities make for sexy females. The truth: they do not. The vast(!) majority of female images are attractive, but also the vast majority of female images aren't sexy. And often the actually sexy images do not show skin or cleavage.
- Fan service for females: the impression is that there's rarely much of interest for girl gamers (or for that matter gay guy gamers). On actual enquiry about specific examples of what are otherwise attractive male images: eyes are wrong, smile is wrong, wields an unattractive weapon, is described as unfriendly, doesn't follow acceptable deity, is evil-aligned, wouldn't want a long-term relationship, has a missing tooth, is sickly, is too old, is more-like-a-father, is part of the underground, is poor/unclean, etc. The truth: the majority of male images is attractive.
The bottom line here is that for females there is a large disparity of what constitutes attractive for the individual girl. Sample discussion from existing art has different girl gamers highlight entirely different samples and aren't interested in the other images. Tastes differ after all. But 90% of female image samples are "sexy" because they "got boobs". Well: 90% of female images are "not sexy" to me.
Is the base assumption here that "sexy" for guys is an image for a female that they'd have an imaginary one-night-stand with; while "sexy" for females is an image for a guy that they'd have as an imaginary husband?
...
Since the discussion started on Wrath of the Righteous, I decided to page through The Midnight Isles and give my sexy rating of the character art:
Ash giant thug (male, not sexy)
Mutasafen (male, sexy)
Yaniel (female, "handsome", not sexy; perhaps sexy to a lesbian)
Ursathella (female, average, sexy? to taste)
Nezirrius (n/a)
Gelderfang (male, ruggedly handsome, sexy? to taste)
Vellexia (female, sexy)
Nocticula (portrait only)
Kestoglyr Mantiel (male, not sexy)
Fulsome queen (female, not sexy)
Melaxmera (n/a)
Abyssal harvester (n/a)
Half-fiend mythic minotaur (male, sexy? to taste)
Galfrey (female, not sexy; gender invariant art)
Hepzamirah (female, sexy? to taste)
Minagho (female, sexy)
Shamira (female, sexy? to taste)
Cambion (male, sexy)
Nocticalu (female, sexy)
Note Vellexia as an example of a sexy female without the need to show breasts or excessive skin. I've given a couple of females that I'd personally classify as unsexy (Ursathella, Hepzamirah, Shamira) the benefit of the doubt and made them sexy "to taste".
Male sexy count: 2
Male sexy to taste count: 2
Male unsexy: 2
Female sexy count: 3
Female sexy to taste count: 3
Female unsexy: 3
In my opinion: a bit of an edge in favor of the male gamer, but adequate presentation for both genders. Given the male-dominated clientele, this is acceptable.
...now I grant that any number of female gamers won't classify the males that >I< classified as "sexy" as sexy themselves. But that doesn't change the fact that they're presented visually as sexualized as any of the sexualized female images.
Just because you don't like chocolate raisins doesn't mean its not a sweet.
...
Finally: xeose4 also points out that for him (though not for the discussion in general in this thread) the emphasis is on equal opportunity of game content. This is an argument that I can get behind to a certain extent; but by and large Paizo has handled sexuality reasonably well.
When designing an AP, the authors (by necessity) take certain baselines into consideration and work from there. The party consists of 4 PCs with a spread of 1 front-line, 1 divine, 1 arcane and 1 misc. The party is not min-maxed. Players "buy in" to the story and don't actively derail it. And as a quiet assumption: the players are male. The story is presented to (in general) appeal to the male.
What is the common thread to go from designed AP to reality? The GM. The GM needs to handle that his/her 7 players are all paladins. The GM has to engineer a return-to-plot after 2 PCs decide to petition the queen in Kyonin instead of saving the Worldwound. The GM also has to re-imagine a female love interest into a male love interest for his/her female gamer. On the whole going from a female love interest to a male love interest is - on average across all campaigns - less work than to design the love interest as male in the first place and converting to female as needed. Of course, that doesn't mean that all romantic options should be designed as female upfront. And here Paizo can perhaps improve the odds a bit for female gamers.
In my opinion, a bit of a shoot-your-own foot is happening here sometimes: as often a suitable position in the AP for a male romantic option is taken by a female, not to have a female romantic option available - but to have a powerful female in a position of prominence or authority. I.e. sometimes fighting gender inequity on a professional level can create gender inequity on a social/romantic level.
Incubi, bulls, swans, showers of gold... I wonder: was Ancient Man really this gullible? Or was this just the cover story Ancient Man told his Ancient Neighbors to keep his Ancient Daughter from suffering the usual (atrocious) punishments for naughtiness?This reminds me of an anecdote I read, a long time ago so I can't recall the source, about the first Europeans to visit Tahiti
These visitors took back to Europe stories of how “naive” and ignorant the natives were because the natives “believed” that a woman could become pregnant if she swam at night when the tide was high and the moon was full.A few years later when other Europeans visited to confirm these stories they learned that the natives had told the first visitors those stories to protect the Europeans “innocence” since these visitors were asking questions about how women became pregnant and the Tahitians felt pity for the “naïve” white people who did not understand that sex caused pregnancies.
I heard the first part of that but haven't heard the other part that it was just Tahitans' messing with Europeans...
Contributor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One version of the Sleeping Beauty tale had the required kiss be... uhmmm... more than a kiss. Where would that end up on the sexual assault scale?
This is true and it was rape. (Giambattista Basile's version is the earliest, and it was rewritten by Perrault and the Grimms.) She also becomes pregnant while still asleep, and the children are prepared for eating. It's a nightmare, not a fairy tale. You'll note, like in the Clever Woman folktale motif (India has a lot of these), the king forgets about her. I think the sleeping was in part (and perversely) to take away Talia's consent, so she would remain innocent in some degree while still the king's lover. But that doesn't excuse it.
The thing is, this doesn't really work that well in most cases, unless she's just trying to challenge herself somehow. The DC to resist being charmed by the succubus is actually higher than the DC to keep kissing her once she's got you. About the only reason she has to avoid using her mind-control powers would be to avoid the odd superhuman noticing that you're under the influence of a charm (DC 25 Sense Motive), but suggestion "Come up to my room later for some fun," can solve that issue too.
Not necessarily. It depends on how the succubus gains by the interaction with the mortal. If getting them to fall of their free will gets the succubus more "hell points" than merely "forcing" them to act, then it may well be in the succubus's best interest not to use their spell-like abilities. Also iirc, a character is aware of when they have to fight off an enchantment (make a Will save vs. enchantment), so using the abilities is dangerous because if you fail, you've revealed your nature even to a non-superbeing.
And demons being pretty much ageless means that the succubus can play a long game. Not interest on the first night, what about next week, next month? Give the target time to think about this beautiful, charming being who is interested. More of a Dangerous Liaisons approach.
Could she do it without magic? Eh, well, yes, no, and maybe. See, she could definitely get NPCs that way, but the thing is nothing about the succubus would help her seduce PCs otherwise. Her rocking Bluff and Diplomacy skills are pretty much nil vs PCs. Bluff could convince them that she's really interested in them, or that she wasn't dangerous, but beyond that? Not much unless they're pretty much willing to play along with it.
I was thinking the same thing. Generally, I don't see any kind of romantic interaction by the PCs in my game. Instead I am more interested in the interactions between NPCs that the PCs then have to deal with the fall out from.
Which is actually a bad thing if that's the plan. Seriously, in general you want to reward PCs for interacting with NPCs and building relationships, or allowing their PCs to be seduced by someone as it's a very humanizing character development. As a result, using such a thing as the primary weapon of a monster would be terrible as you condition the player into becoming more defensive in future sessions for ages to come.
Here is where I see things differently. I can see a succubus trying to get cozy with a PC only to rebuffed. Okay, hard to get, we'll try again in a little while. Then the PC somehow finds out the succubus's true nature and goes, "DIE DEMON!" At that point the succubus starts using their magical abilities. These then don't count as sexual assault, but instead combat. Dominating someone and making them kiss you during combat (I am sure there isn't enough time to do anything more intimate during combat, well not if you want to enjoy it) isn't what I think most people would consider sexual assault (there is no real sexual issue, it is purely a combat technique).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It is a delicate issue for sure. I`m not entirely sure how to comment on the issue at hand, but here is what I have noticed.
1) Females scantily clad (This means you Seoni I`m sorry)
2) All women seem to be hugely busty or always (with few exceptions) slim perfect or near perfect specimens.
3) Boob armor plate. Not only do we know it didn`t exist in real life, it looks silly and is completely impractical.
4) Not advocating that we should balance by oversexualizing men, but a few handsome gentlemen hear and there would help, (not overly muscled beefcakes either)
My suggestion how to solve it:
The only thing I can suggest, tone down the female artwork. Portray womens personality not just as an object of lust or love, but with powerful strongwilled personalities. Women generals who one would not dare approach with such insolent behavior. Powerful, educated, still beautiful, strong willed female portrayals can go a long way. In fact I have seen such examples such as Queen Galfrey of Mendev.
This is only one mans opinion and I hope I have been sensitive enough toward the topic, and contributed to the discussion.
I wonder about the validity of "free will." The brain is a meat computer that processes stimuli and makes you do stuff.
One male creature is "hot" and tall and sexy and "smells nice" (i.e., emits pheromones that activate desire in females). He knows chicks dig him, and uses that. We call what he does "seduction." A second male uses illusion magic to appear tall and sexy and enchantment [charm] spells to simulate the pheromones, and now all the sudden it's 50/50 whether it's seduction or rape. A third male bypasses the illusion magic and uses strong, direct [compulsion] spells; everyone agrees that he's a rapist. But in reality, all three of them are doing the exact same thing; the differences are in appearance and technical details, not in fundamental methodology.
Design Manager
|
***
2) All women seem to be hugely busty or always (with few exceptions) slim perfect or near perfect specimens.
***
Sorry to cut out the bulk of your post but this was the piece I wanted to address.
It's not just the women who meet this criteria, it's true of the men as well. From the Sean Connery iconic wizard (serously, I know quite a few ladies who really dig Ezren),the rippling abs of the iconic monk, to the permanent 5 o'clock shadow and Kevin Sorbo hair of the iconic Fighter, most of the male iconics are portrayed as attractive figures as well.
I think that has more to do with the fact that artists like to draw these stylized figures. Generally, when an artist does something they want it to be attractive and possibly edgy, unless the point is to achieve the opposite effect.
Not everyone wants to envision their fantasy character as being dumpy and flawed like the rest of us. I remember a friend of mine once saying that the reason she never played Horde characters in WoW was because "I'm dumpy and clumsy in real life, why would I want to be that all over again in a game where I can be anything?". So I think there's both a market and a demand for these physically impressive characters.
I think Paizo actually has done a very good job of portraying characters who, while perhaps peak physical specimens, are at least realistically proportioned with achieveable builds. The women anyways. Frankly I think the standards set by Seltyiel and Sajan are far more unrealistic and unachievable than any of the female iconics or NPCs who aren't some kind of sex monster.
The benchmarks for "Fanservice" seem to be very different for women and men. Is the consensus just that anything with large boobs serves as "hyper-sexualized" while nothing short of the hyper-specific type of male image that appeals to you personally will serve as "Fanservice" for the females?
***
2) All women seem to be hugely busty or always (with few exceptions) slim perfect or near perfect specimens.
***
Sorry to cut out the bulk of your post but this was the piece I wanted to address.
It's not just the women who meet this criteria, it's true of the men as well. From the Sean Connery iconic wizard (serously, I know quite a few ladies who really dig Ezren),the rippling abs of the iconic monk, to the permanent 5 o'clock shadow and Kevin Sorbo hair of the iconic Fighter, most of the male iconics are portrayed as attractive figures as well.
I think that has more to do with the fact that artists like to draw these stylized figures. Generally, when an artist does something they want it to be attractive and possibly edgy, unless the point is to achieve the opposite effect.
Not everyone wants to envision their fantasy character as being dumpy and flawed like the rest of us. I remember a friend of mine once saying that the reason she never played Horde characters in WoW was because "I'm dumpy and clumsy in real life, why would I want to be that all over again in a game where I can be anything?". So I think there's both a market and a demand for these physically impressive characters.
I think Paizo actually has done a very good job of portraying characters who, while perhaps peak physical specimens, are at least realistically proportioned with achieveable builds. The women anyways. Frankly I think the standards set by Seltyiel and Sajan are far more unrealistic and unachievable than any of the female iconics or NPCs who aren't some kind of sex monster.
I say these things for a good reason.
Now I am not intentionally going to be flippant about male self image problems, because they do exist and it isn`t healthy. But more severely are female body image problems. It is near epidemic in our society. The unrealistic view of female body image is causing women to kill themselves literally, it is a horrible problem. And I know this is just my opinion but hyper sexualized and hyper optomalized images of women doesn`t help. I am asking for more realistic interpretations for a good reason is all.
Also worth noting: A succubus wants to taint people's souls. She wants them to do bad things. Dominating someone doesn't do that, simply because the target is not the one doing these things. If a pure hearted person is dominated into killing his family, it will torture him, but it won't taint his soul.
In Pathfinder I don't think that is accurate.
From the bestiary:
"Demons exist for one reason—to destroy. Where their more lawful counterparts, the devils of Hell, seek to twist mortal minds and values to remake and reshape them into reflections of their own evil, demons seek only to maim, ruin, and feed. . . . It is the prolonging of mortal pain and suffering that fuels a demon's lusts and desires, for it is partially from mortal sin and cruelty that these monstrous fiends were born."
I don't have Demons Revisited in front of me so I can't say more about their non core extra descriptions but as core succubus demons are portrayed they'd be perfectly happy torturing someone without tainting their soul.
In fairness, a Succubus also has Profane Gift and excellent Charisma and social skills, and is stated in her description to be, y'know, subtle. The Mind Control Mojo is for if none of that works (and so she fulfills a particular combat role), not a first option.Evil monsters being able to magically compel people to do things if seduction doesn't work, seems reasonable enough. It should probably not be the norm among non-Evil seductive creatures, certainly, but it's not inherently a bad idea for Demons to be, well, pretty damn awful.
In the PRD here is their entire flavor text and the reference to subtlety:
"Among the demon hordes, a succubus can often rise to incredible heights of power through her manipulations and sensual charms, and many a demonic war has raged due to the subtle machinations of such creatures. A succubus is formed from the souls of particularly lustful and rapacious evil mortals."
So the subtle machinations is a reference to instigating demonic wars which ties back to the destruction goals of demons.
Basing characterization off their lustful and rapacious origins and going with first option mind-influencing magic over subtle nonmagical seduction seems in line for them as presented.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if only there was a way to a effect change as a player and/or GM that did not consist of asking for things that are already being done by good writers, artists and editors
oh wait there is